|
|
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
First ... 12 62 102 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 122 ... Last
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Its a shame people go hungry--should the government provide food to everyone? They do provide it to some. We don't tell those who pay for themselves what food they must buy.
Yes, we have food stamps and they work for those who can't afford all their edible needs. Is that wrong?Its a shame people go hungry--should the government provide food to everyone? They do provide it to some. We don't tell those who pay for themselves what food they must buy.
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Its a shame some people don't have homes--should the government provide housing to everyone? They do provide to some. We don't tell those providing their own housing where they must live or in what size home.
Housing isn't the same as healthcare. You don't die because you have to rent or have or live in a shelter. Don't compare it to healthcare.Its a shame some people don't have homes--should the government provide housing to everyone? They do provide to some. We don't tell those providing their own housing where they must live or in what size home.
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Its a shame that some people don't have adequate medical care--should the government provide it to everyone? We already do to some...so why should the government get into the business of involving itself with my healthcare?
That's where we are completely different in our thinking. I believe healthcare is an essential human right. Just like you might think that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms anytime and anywhere.Its a shame that some people don't have adequate medical care--should the government provide it to everyone? We already do to some...so why should the government get into the business of involving itself with my healthcare?
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
I don't want the government involved in my health care, nor what I eat or the home I choose to live in. If someone else can't afford it--well, use the tax money we give government wisely and efficiently and pay for those people if that is our moral obligation.
If I'm left begging for Government Aid, then I'll do what they say, and decide is best for me. Until then, leave me out of it. I'll keep paying, and unlike someone else claims--it is a helluva lot more than a few quarters.
KAM
The government doesn't want to get involved in YOUR healthcare. It wants those who don't have any or can't afford it to be able to get treatment when they need it. You can keep yours. Yes, a public option would use your tax money to pay for those same people's healthcare. Again, you need to stop listening to conservative scare tactics and actually educate yourself on what the Obama administration is proposing.I don't want the government involved in my health care, nor what I eat or the home I choose to live in. If someone else can't afford it--well, use the tax money we give government wisely and efficiently and pay for those people if that is our moral obligation.
If I'm left begging for Government Aid, then I'll do what they say, and decide is best for me. Until then, leave me out of it. I'll keep paying, and unlike someone else claims--it is a helluva lot more than a few quarters.
KAM
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
I don't want the government involved in my health care, nor what I eat or the home I choose to live in. If someone else can't afford it--well, use the tax money we give government wisely and efficiently and pay for those people if that is our moral obligation.
Then you do not want the FDA clearing medications and devices for safe use. Nor do you want NIH to remain the world-leader in medical research.I don't want the government involved in my health care, nor what I eat or the home I choose to live in. If someone else can't afford it--well, use the tax money we give government wisely and efficiently and pay for those people if that is our moral obligation.
Then you do not want food and animal farming and handling standards to exist to prevent disease.
Then you do not want a home which is built to safe standards.
Sounds like Mister Self-Reliant has alot of work to do for himself. Need a hand?
If industries had historically policed themselves, satisfactorily, there never would have been the need for gub'ment "intervention".
Originally Posted by haydur:
Yes, we have food stamps and they work for those who can't afford all their edible needs. Is that wrong?
Wrong? No, I think helping the needy is a virtue. However, the government's job isn't to define our virtues is it?Yes, we have food stamps and they work for those who can't afford all their edible needs. Is that wrong?
Originally Posted by haydur:
Housing isn't the same as healthcare. You don't die because you have to rent or have or live in a shelter. Don't compare it to healthcare.
Actually, you most certainly can die without proper shelter, and people do.Housing isn't the same as healthcare. You don't die because you have to rent or have or live in a shelter. Don't compare it to healthcare.
Originally Posted by haydur:
That's where we are completely different in our thinking. I believe healthcare is an essential human right. Just like you might think that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms anytime and anywhere.
Well, I think you have a very strange understanding of what an essential human right is then. Because by saying that people have an essential (fundamental?) right to health care means inherently that someone else is REQUIRED to provide that for them (assuming they cannot treat themselves).That's where we are completely different in our thinking. I believe healthcare is an essential human right. Just like you might think that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms anytime and anywhere.
Your claim means that someone is required to give someone else something.
Now if you said that everyone has the inherent, essential right to SEEK healthcare, I could agree with you. You cannot have a fundamental right to something that takes from someone else. Your inherent rights cannot infringe upon another's.
Also funny how you are seeking to compare a belief created out of thin air compared to something addressed specifically in the bill of rights.
Originally Posted by haydur:
The government doesn't want to get involved in YOUR healthcare. It wants those who don't have any or can't afford it to be able to get treatment when they need it. You can keep yours. Yes, a public option would use your tax money to pay for those same people's healthcare. Again, you need to stop listening to conservative scare tactics and actually educate yourself on what the Obama administration is proposing.
Don't presume you have any grounds to lecture me on anything, nor know the source of my beliefs or information. Especially when you are incorrect. I've heard these vacant accusations from others--I don't need a repeat from you. You're parroting Obama's talking points so don't tell me I need to educate myself.The government doesn't want to get involved in YOUR healthcare. It wants those who don't have any or can't afford it to be able to get treatment when they need it. You can keep yours. Yes, a public option would use your tax money to pay for those same people's healthcare. Again, you need to stop listening to conservative scare tactics and actually educate yourself on what the Obama administration is proposing.
These proposals DO involve themselves in my health care in several ways. They require me to carry health insurance, some of them tax health care plans--meaning they increase my premiums. That's in addition to already taking my tax money to pay for others. Further, considering some versions of this bill encourage businesses (by simple financial disincentive) to drop health insurance plans, it is also likely that many people (perhaps me too) will end up on that "public option" that no one is forcing anyone into.
There is a big difference between being able to theoretically keep my coverage, and the odds that I will be able to if this plan is enacted.
You might also want to educate yourself on the history of government promises and results.
KAM
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
Then you do not want the FDA clearing medications and devices for safe use. Nor do you want NIH to remain the world-leader in medical research.
Then you do not want food and animal farming and handling standards to exist to prevent disease.
Then you do not want a home which is built to safe standards.
Sounds like Mister Self-Reliant has alot of work to do for himself. Need a hand?
If industries had historically policed themselves, satisfactorily, there never would have been the need for gub'ment "intervention".
I thought my context was clear, but apparently it wasn't, so let me clarify for you. I don't want the government to be involved with paying for, choosing, specifying or requiring me to do anything in regards to what food I eat, where I live or medical treatment I seek. Then you do not want the FDA clearing medications and devices for safe use. Nor do you want NIH to remain the world-leader in medical research.
Then you do not want food and animal farming and handling standards to exist to prevent disease.
Then you do not want a home which is built to safe standards.
Sounds like Mister Self-Reliant has alot of work to do for himself. Need a hand?
If industries had historically policed themselves, satisfactorily, there never would have been the need for gub'ment "intervention".
Apparently you lack the ability to understand the difference in providing SPECIFIC SERVICES to an individual, and supporting organizations that provide a GENERAL benefit to society as a whole. This is usually within the scope of government as denoted in the Constitution.
When the Constitution says things like "promote the GENERAL welfare" that's the sorts of things they refer to. Not the SPECIFIC service for an individual.
You and others persist at this flawed argument. Rarely do I encounter people so intentionally obtuse.
KAM
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
Nor do you want NIH to remain the world-leader in medical research.
Wait, a US institution is THE World Leader in medical research? How can this happen. Isn't the US behind all these other industrialized nations in healthcare? Nor do you want NIH to remain the world-leader in medical research.
That's what I keep hearing. So, our non-socialist system which collects huge amounts of money (from profits) to pay for Institutions like this is better than anywhere else in the world?
Why aren't these other nations with supposedly better healthcare superior to us here as well? Perhaps they don't have the money to fund Organizations like this that benefit everyone (promoting the GENERAL welfare) because they are spending their money elsewhere. Since the whole world benefits from the NIH, under the current system (according to you), what will happen when we need to fund over 800 billion in new costs.
Is it possible that in our attempt to model ourselves after European nations national healthcare plans that we will inadvertently degrade our ability to pay for THE world leader in Medical research? Money has to come from somewhere.
Will that be the case? No way of knowing.
KAM
Originally Posted by Micael:
Do we really want the government to decide who lives, who dies, and how?
We'll go from the choice of 100s of healthcare plans to one government one size fits all coverage where some beaurocrat in a basement somewhere decides if your mother gets surgery or pain killers based on a budget and cost savings to the already overburdened tax payers.
I know this is bit old, but i would like to see some proof to the fact you thing the government will take over all insurance so there is only one insurance company. The public option will add another insurance company so i will have more choice, just think if Blue Cross Blue Shield became too expensive for me, i could got to the govt plan, or some other health insurance plan. Do we really want the government to decide who lives, who dies, and how?
We'll go from the choice of 100s of healthcare plans to one government one size fits all coverage where some beaurocrat in a basement somewhere decides if your mother gets surgery or pain killers based on a budget and cost savings to the already overburdened tax payers.
No where i have i seen written or definate proof that the fed will close the doors on the 100+ insurance companies. imagine the economic turmoil that would cause, 100,000's of people would lose thier jobs, do you honestly believe that will happen. and i would so liek to see this written proof of the Death Panels you so speak of.
check out this atricle do you think this is right, and what if this was your child
www(dot)huffingtonpost(dot)com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
it know it has a very liberal slant, but its still wrong.
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
I thought my context was clear, but apparently it wasn't, so let me clarify for you. I don't want the government to be involved with paying for, choosing, specifying or requiring me to do anything in regards to what food I eat, where I live or medical treatment I seek.
Then clearly you are very unfamiliar with American life, as it actually exists. But, let's not continue in circles on this. Seriously, let's move on.I thought my context was clear, but apparently it wasn't, so let me clarify for you. I don't want the government to be involved with paying for, choosing, specifying or requiring me to do anything in regards to what food I eat, where I live or medical treatment I seek.
Originally Posted by :
Apparently you lack the ability to understand the difference in providing SPECIFIC SERVICES to an individual, and supporting organizations that provide a GENERAL benefit to society as a whole. This is usually within the scope of government as denoted in the Constitution.
When the Constitution says things like "promote the GENERAL welfare" that's the sorts of things they refer to. Not the SPECIFIC service for an individual.
If you don't mind terribly, I'll consider the opinions of Constitutional scholars before I take heed of "I read it on the internet as written by someone I can't verify". And this is where the Constitution gets sticky for you. You're an absolutist, but only on a cherry-picked, partisan basis. Ever wonder why you cannot own your own M65 Atomic Cannon, even with a waiting period, cash in-hand, and a background check?Apparently you lack the ability to understand the difference in providing SPECIFIC SERVICES to an individual, and supporting organizations that provide a GENERAL benefit to society as a whole. This is usually within the scope of government as denoted in the Constitution.
When the Constitution says things like "promote the GENERAL welfare" that's the sorts of things they refer to. Not the SPECIFIC service for an individual.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
Then clearly you are very unfamiliar with American life, as it actually exists. But, let's not continue in circles on this. Seriously, let's move on.
So...my life isn't an American life? Clearly I'm familiar with my own life, and I am a US Citizen. You don't define "American life."Then clearly you are very unfamiliar with American life, as it actually exists. But, let's not continue in circles on this. Seriously, let's move on.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
If you don't mind terribly, I'll consider the opinions of Constitutional scholars before I take heed of "I read it on the internet as written by someone I can't verify". And this is where the Constitution gets sticky for you. You're an absolutist, but only on a cherry-picked, partisan basis. Ever wonder why you cannot own your own M65 Atomic Cannon, even with a waiting period, cash in-hand, and a background check?
By all means. I suggest you take to hear the words of James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution.If you don't mind terribly, I'll consider the opinions of Constitutional scholars before I take heed of "I read it on the internet as written by someone I can't verify". And this is where the Constitution gets sticky for you. You're an absolutist, but only on a cherry-picked, partisan basis. Ever wonder why you cannot own your own M65 Atomic Cannon, even with a waiting period, cash in-hand, and a background check?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Or are you going to "cherry pick" something you prefer instead.
Further, your entire suggestion that one needs to be a "Constitutional scholar" is flawed. That's what people who want to mangle the Constitution do in order to twist it into something it was never intended to be do in order to justify their unconstitutional goals. They refer to "experts" who excel and explaining away what it actually says, and what the stated intent of the people who created it said about it.
Or is my referencing James Madison too partisan for you?
KAM
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
So...my life isn't an American life? Clearly I'm familiar with my own life, and I am a US Citizen. You don't define "American life."
I'm sorry. I should have underscored that "American life" was a generalization intended to conjur up consideration for all the underpinnings of what supports our way of life [Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Food products, Safe pharmaceuticals, Safe medical devices, Safe Public Schools, etc]. Someone of your ilk might find it necessary to define someone else's personal life, but you won't find that within me.So...my life isn't an American life? Clearly I'm familiar with my own life, and I am a US Citizen. You don't define "American life."
Originally Posted by :
By all means. I suggest you take to hear the words of James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution.
Actually, Madison's work became more marginalized as the Constitution was developed. And besides, we could fill pages and pages with quotes from every conceivable viewpoint only to arrive right back here. Yet you continually beg for battle. Sorry. Look elsewhere.By all means. I suggest you take to hear the words of James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution.
What can I say? The "General Welfare" ain't what it used to be! The world and this country has changed and demands that we move forward together, if possible. Regardless, we are moving forward.
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Wait, a US institution is THE World Leader in medical research? How can this happen. Isn't the US behind all these other industrialized nations in healthcare?
KAM
Yes, and yes, although there are many excellent foreign national research institutes, especially in France (read "And the Band Played On")...who has a universal health care plan. If you want to defund the NIH to make sure that everyone in this country has health care and we can maybe move up the rankings, that would be your choice (actually, Congress's choice). It's not an either or, now, is it? I'm pretty sure we could continue to fund both, given the NIH total budget is around 30 billion. That's a month or so in Iraq and Afghanistan.Wait, a US institution is THE World Leader in medical research? How can this happen. Isn't the US behind all these other industrialized nations in healthcare?
KAM
Originally Posted by phlegm:
I'm a Canadian, so I don't want to hijack your discussion, but I'm not sure I understand the argument against public healthcare.
Believe me, I'm neutral on this - not trying to cause an argument - it's your country.
From my perspective, it's pretty good though:
-In Canada, when I need to see the doctor, I just go. If I lose my job, I can still go. That takes a lot of worry away from me and my family.
-Small businesses don't have to worry about paying for a health plan. Your employees are just covered. I'm thinking that could really help the bottom line.
-I noticed that in union negotiations, that US labour costs were more expensive relative to Canada since US firms had to factor in a cost-per-head for healthcare. This was not part of the expense for Canadian workers, thus a reason for some Canadian auto plants. (Maybe a bad example given the current climate, but it applies to organized labour overall.)
-Re coverage for older folks/retirees, that has not been an issue either. My wife's great aunt fell, and broke her hip. She had a hip replacement at the age of 92. (Even surprised me!)
-I'm not aware of any lack of quality here, so I don't think that's an issue.
Are taxes higher in Canada? You bet.
Is the government extremely efficient at running healthcare? Nope.
Can we get an MRI, etc. immediately? No way - always have to wait, but I'm not sure if you can get an MRI immediately in the US? (Please let me know.)
But, it works pretty well, and although - if I'm honest - it does bother me that I'm paying for "freeloaders" under this system, there are a lot of honest people that deserve healthcare, so overall I'm for it.
And it kills me to see people in the US who get a serious condition, and maybe even with a healthcare plan they need to pay for a substantial portion themselves. It just seems like a shame that they'd have to incur so much debt to get healthy.
Cheers.
You're a Canadian and you just don't understand. Additionally we don't care what you think. Right, Micael? Kam?I'm a Canadian, so I don't want to hijack your discussion, but I'm not sure I understand the argument against public healthcare.
Believe me, I'm neutral on this - not trying to cause an argument - it's your country.
From my perspective, it's pretty good though:
-In Canada, when I need to see the doctor, I just go. If I lose my job, I can still go. That takes a lot of worry away from me and my family.
-Small businesses don't have to worry about paying for a health plan. Your employees are just covered. I'm thinking that could really help the bottom line.
-I noticed that in union negotiations, that US labour costs were more expensive relative to Canada since US firms had to factor in a cost-per-head for healthcare. This was not part of the expense for Canadian workers, thus a reason for some Canadian auto plants. (Maybe a bad example given the current climate, but it applies to organized labour overall.)
-Re coverage for older folks/retirees, that has not been an issue either. My wife's great aunt fell, and broke her hip. She had a hip replacement at the age of 92. (Even surprised me!)
-I'm not aware of any lack of quality here, so I don't think that's an issue.
Are taxes higher in Canada? You bet.
Is the government extremely efficient at running healthcare? Nope.
Can we get an MRI, etc. immediately? No way - always have to wait, but I'm not sure if you can get an MRI immediately in the US? (Please let me know.)
But, it works pretty well, and although - if I'm honest - it does bother me that I'm paying for "freeloaders" under this system, there are a lot of honest people that deserve healthcare, so overall I'm for it.
And it kills me to see people in the US who get a serious condition, and maybe even with a healthcare plan they need to pay for a substantial portion themselves. It just seems like a shame that they'd have to incur so much debt to get healthy.
Cheers.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
I'm sorry. I should have underscored that "American life" was a generalization intended to conjur up consideration for all the underpinnings of what supports our way of life [Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Food products, Safe pharmaceuticals, Safe medical devices, Safe Public Schools, etc]. Someone of your ilk might find it necessary to define someone else's personal life, but you won't find that within me.
Well, that's a totally unfounded statement considering I've not attempted to define others personal lives. Just totally nonsensical.I'm sorry. I should have underscored that "American life" was a generalization intended to conjur up consideration for all the underpinnings of what supports our way of life [Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Food products, Safe pharmaceuticals, Safe medical devices, Safe Public Schools, etc]. Someone of your ilk might find it necessary to define someone else's personal life, but you won't find that within me.
Of course your statement about clean water, food, etc is a complete straw man as well.
So, in one short paragraph you've pulled something completely out of your hind end, AND completely distorted (or ignored) what I actually said.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
Actually, Madison's work became more marginalized as the Constitution was developed. And besides, we could fill pages and pages with quotes from every conceivable viewpoint only to arrive right back here. Yet you continually beg for battle. Sorry. Look elsewhere.
Pathetic. Yes, please keep accusing others of "cherry picking." Actually, Madison's work became more marginalized as the Constitution was developed. And besides, we could fill pages and pages with quotes from every conceivable viewpoint only to arrive right back here. Yet you continually beg for battle. Sorry. Look elsewhere.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
What can I say? The "General Welfare" ain't what it used to be! The world and this country has changed and demands that we move forward together, if possible. Regardless, we are moving forward.
Ah, so finally a bit of honesty leaks out here. What you really meant all along is that you really don't care anything about the Constitution. In other words--you demand we do what you want, regardless of whether it is Constitutional or not, because you've decided it is what we should do. Well, advocating that requires that our elected officials break their oaths of office, and violate our highest law. What can I say? The "General Welfare" ain't what it used to be! The world and this country has changed and demands that we move forward together, if possible. Regardless, we are moving forward.
Actually the world and this country don't this--you do. You and people like you who are willing to openly violate the highest law we have.
We are moving forward--within the confines of the law--that is the Constitution. I guess if people such as you persist, in your open violation of that, sooner or later someone will stop you.
KAM
Originally Posted by davidra:
You're a Canadian and you just don't understand. Additionally we don't care what you think. Right, Micael? Kam?
Actually, no, I'm not too concerned about what Canadians do or what works (or doesn't--depends on who you talk to) for Canadians, but I didn't want to be rude to someone or be dismissive of them. They've got as much right to comment as anyone else.You're a Canadian and you just don't understand. Additionally we don't care what you think. Right, Micael? Kam?
That being said--it is very true that many other people--including my fellow Citizens don't have the same understanding (or don't care) about certain things that I do.
KAM
Originally Posted by zelgo:
There is a major difference between medical research and healthcare.
Healthcare refers to how the research is delivered to patients.
We have fantastic research, facilities, and health professionals. What we have is a screwed up delivery system:
Doctors over order because they are afraid of lawsuits; doctors over order because of third-party billing; because of lack of continuity of care, the same tests are ordered by every healthcare professional a patient might see; insurance companies, afraid of the HMO backlash because HMO's would deny tests based more on cost than quality, now allow most things but charge higher and higher premiums to cover them; insurance companies, each with its own paperwork and rules, cause much of the healthcare dollar to be used for administrative costs instead of healthcare; Because every step of the process has profit built into it, the costs rise and rise and rise.
The system has to be completely reconfigured; it cannot sustain itself.
I would agree with almost everything you said there, except generally, I don't think profit isn't a bad thing. I think profit is a great motivator for progress, whereas others see it as a burden. Profit is what enables many good things to occur--because it creates wealth that can pay for all sorts of great things.There is a major difference between medical research and healthcare.
Healthcare refers to how the research is delivered to patients.
We have fantastic research, facilities, and health professionals. What we have is a screwed up delivery system:
Doctors over order because they are afraid of lawsuits; doctors over order because of third-party billing; because of lack of continuity of care, the same tests are ordered by every healthcare professional a patient might see; insurance companies, afraid of the HMO backlash because HMO's would deny tests based more on cost than quality, now allow most things but charge higher and higher premiums to cover them; insurance companies, each with its own paperwork and rules, cause much of the healthcare dollar to be used for administrative costs instead of healthcare; Because every step of the process has profit built into it, the costs rise and rise and rise.
The system has to be completely reconfigured; it cannot sustain itself.
The system does need to be completely reconfigured. I just don't agree with the plans that others advocate. I've spoken extensively about my views on this--and a lot relates to administrative costs and eliminating them.
KAM
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Well, that's a totally unfounded statement considering I've not attempted to define others personal lives. Just totally nonsensical.
You just keep openly misrepresenting and misconstruing when everyone here can read and comprehend. What fool does that? Not even the worst public defender thinks they can continually lie before a jury!Well, that's a totally unfounded statement considering I've not attempted to define others personal lives. Just totally nonsensical.
Originally Posted by :
We are moving forward--within the confines of the law--that is the Constitution. I guess if people such as you persist, in your open violation of that, sooner or later someone will stop you.
But, to clarify one thing for you, I was speaking of "General Welfare", not "General Warfare" which is what you're advocating. We are moving forward--within the confines of the law--that is the Constitution. I guess if people such as you persist, in your open violation of that, sooner or later someone will stop you.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Oh, KAM, that was funny. You're such a strong defender of the Constitution!
I just didn't realize you were such an expert...mainly because I didn't hear a peep out of you when Bush was President.
You can bet your life I'm a strong defender of the Constitution. However, I'm not an expert, nor is one required to be.Oh, KAM, that was funny. You're such a strong defender of the Constitution!
I just didn't realize you were such an expert...mainly because I didn't hear a peep out of you when Bush was President.
Yeah, I didn't post here when Bush was President, so its really unlikely that you would have heard from me then.
KAM
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Maybe if you actually look around the world, you'll see the other industrailzed countries have actually taken effective steps we can learn from.
Sorry, your last statement seems a bit megalomaniacal.
We might be able to learn from other countries and we might also learn what not to do. Maybe if you actually look around the world, you'll see the other industrailzed countries have actually taken effective steps we can learn from.
Sorry, your last statement seems a bit megalomaniacal.
Megalomaniacal?
No, its really just a simple acknowledgment that people don't share my views.
KAM
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
You just keep openly misrepresenting and misconstruing when everyone here can read and comprehend. What fool does that? Not even the worst public defender thinks they can continually lie before a jury!
Says the most dishonest fool I've ever encountered on the internet.You just keep openly misrepresenting and misconstruing when everyone here can read and comprehend. What fool does that? Not even the worst public defender thinks they can continually lie before a jury!
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
But, to clarify one thing for you, I was speaking of "General Welfare", not "General Warfare" which is what you're advocating.
Do you imagine you are witty?But, to clarify one thing for you, I was speaking of "General Welfare", not "General Warfare" which is what you're advocating.
KAM
Originally Posted by KAM1138:
Says the most dishonest fool I've ever encountered on the internet.
More empty barbs. What else would be expected at this point?Says the most dishonest fool I've ever encountered on the internet.
Turn the page already.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
I never said profit was bad. I, too, think it can help create progress. but I'm not sure exactly great ideas insurance companies have come up with. Too much profit can suffocate the system. Too many middle-men, which American healthcare seems to have, can rack up the money so insurance becomes unaffordable.
Actually, KAM, I haven't seen what you are actually for doing to fix our healthcare system. What do you propose and how should it be done?
Great--we agree about Profit. Although too much profit...not sure about that. Profit at all expense isn't likely to work out well, if that's what you meant.I never said profit was bad. I, too, think it can help create progress. but I'm not sure exactly great ideas insurance companies have come up with. Too much profit can suffocate the system. Too many middle-men, which American healthcare seems to have, can rack up the money so insurance becomes unaffordable.
Actually, KAM, I haven't seen what you are actually for doing to fix our healthcare system. What do you propose and how should it be done?
I've also not taken a strong position in support of Insurance companies or other middle men. I think they might have some function.
I actually don't have time to respond right now, but earlier today I reiterated some of my ideas (I think it was in the Fixing healthcare thread. Actually, I think WAY back when I first started posting in this thread I put up my first listing of ideas--you might not have seen it.
If you don't have time to go back and look for either of those, I can outline the basic ideas for you later.
Very quickly--I favor a direct payer system to the extend possible (eliminates the middle man). It keeps, but minimizes insurance in order to make it more affordable. There are other things too, but that's the shortest version.
KAM
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
